You are on page 1of 23
eating right in america
eating right in america
eating right in america
eating right in america
eating right
in america
eating right in america
h t l a e H & d o o F eating right f in
h
t
l
a
e
H
&
d
o
o
F
eating right
f
in america
o
s
c
i
t
i
l
o
P
l
a
r
u
t
l
u
C
e
h
T

Charlotte Bilteko√

Duke University Press Durham and London 2013

2013 Duke University Press. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper $. Designed by Courtney Leigh Baker and Typeset in Minion Pro with Blanch display by Keystone Typesetting, Inc.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Bilteko√, Charlotte. Eating right in America : the cultural politics of food and health / Charlotte Bilteko√. pages cm Includes bibliographical references and index. isbn 978-0-8223-5544-1 (cloth : alk. paper) isbn 978-0-8223-5559-5 (pbk. : alk. paper) 1. Nutrition—United States. 2. Diet—United States. 3. Food habits—United States. I. Title. tx360.u6b548 2013

394.1%20973—dc23

2013013823

To my parents, For my children

Figures viii

CONTENTS
CONTENTS

one The Cultural Politics of Dietary Health 1

two Scientific Moralization and the Beginning of Modern Dietary Reform 13

three Anxiety and Aspiration on the Nutrition Front 45

four From Microscopes to ‘‘Macroscopes’’ 80

five Thinness as Health, Self-Control, and Citizenship 109

six Connecting the Dots. Dietary Reform Past, Present, and Future 150

Notes 157

Bibliography 185

Acknowledgments 199

Index 203

figure 2.1 W. O. Atwater’s ‘‘Comparative Expenses of Food,’’ a quantitative index of dietary morality 18

figure 2.2 A silent teacher: interior of the New England Kitchen 25

figure 2.3 The Rumford Kitchen at the World’s Columbian Exhibition 34

figure 2.4 Interior of the Rumford Kitchen, with mottos visible on the walls 34

figure 2.5 ‘‘Dietary No. 1: For Average Family of Six, 15 Cents per Person per Day’’ 39

figure 2.6 ‘‘Dietary No. 5: $1.00 per Person per Day’’ 40

figure 3.1 Empirical meets ethical on the home front 58

figure 3.2 High stakes for eating right: nutritional treason 71

figure 3.3 High stakes for wartime eating right: nutritional patriotism 72

figure 3.4 Kitchen Kommandos: a wartime division of nutritional citizenship 76

figure 3.5 Female service as part of eating ‘‘the Basic 7 way’’ 77

FIGURES
FIGURES

figure 3.6 Celebrating the potential, both empirical and ethical, of nutrition in the hands of American women 78

figure 4.1 Alice Waters with students and produce at the Edible Schoolyard 97

figure 4.2 Mealtime at the Edible Schoolyard as a civilizing, socializing ritual 97

figure 5.1 Body-mass increases steadily engulfing the national land mass from 1985 to 2010 123

figure 5.2 Patriotic iconography of obesity in Harvard Magazine 132

figure 5.3 Patriotic iconography of obesity in the Atlantic 132

figure 5.4 The 2004 National Body Challenge dvd cover 136

figure 5.5 The body challengers in front of the Capitol building 136

figure 5.6

A body challenger struggles to complete a marine training course 138

figure 5.7

A body challenger and his self-improvement targets

framed by the American flag 138

figure 5.8 Buddy Love, in The Nutty Professor (1996) 146

figure 5.9 Professor Klump, in The Nutty Professor (1996) 146

figure 5.10 Dinner at the comedy club, in The Nutty Professor (1996) 147

figure 5.11 Dinner at the Klump residence, in The Nutty Professor (1996) 147

The food problem is fundamental to the welfare of the race. Society, to protect itself,
The food problem is fundamental to
the welfare of the race. Society, to protect itself, must
take cognizance of the question of food and nutrition.
—ellen richards 1910
Defense is
building the health, the physical fitness, the
social well-being of all our people, and doing it the democratic
way. Hungry people, undernourished people, ill people, do
not make for strong defense. —harriet elliot 1940
I believe our destiny as a nation depends on how we nourish
The way we produce, prepare and eat food expresses the bedrock
values on which our public and private lives are built.
—alice waters 1992
We are at a crossroads in our nation. We’re standing at the corners
of health and disease. Are we going to sentence ourselves to
being a society defined by obesity and disease? Or are we
going to choose to be a nation of health and vitality?
—surgeon general richard
carmona 2003
ONE
ONE

THE CULTURAL POLITICS OF DIETARY HEALTH

This project began in the mid-1990s when I was working as a cook in San Francisco and discovered a book called Perfection Salad in a used book- store. Laura Shapiro’s history of the domestic science movement en- thralled me both because of the story it told, through food, about the aspirations of a generation of women responding to industrialization, urbanization, and immigration and because its very existence assured me that, as I had suspected, it was possible and productive to rethink Ameri- can history through the lens of food. Shapiro’s subjects were reformers who believed that changing what people ate could improve their morals and character and ultimately could address some of the most di≈cult social problems—from intemperance to labor unrest—arising in the rap- idly industrializing urban centers of the American Northeast. Ellen Rich- ards, the leader of the domestic science movement, was convinced that teaching people to eat right was essential to creating responsible and moral citizens and maintaining a stable social order. I was struck by the reso- nance between these ideas about the social importance of eating habits one hundred years earlier and what a certain restaurateur-turned-activist was beginning to preach to a very receptive audience in Berkeley and beyond. Alice Waters was passionately urging people to recognize the connection between eating and ethics, and through her Edible Schoolyard project was attempting to show exactly how teaching people to eat right could create

responsible citizens and address problems in the social order—from nihil- ism to violence and environmental degradation. Waters’s ideas about how we should be eating in order to protect our most cherished resources, both social and environmental, resonated with me and many of my friends. I had grown up allergic to milk in the shadow of a family dairy business—my great grandfather had started making cottage cheese in his bathtub in the 1920s, and by the time I came along the business had grown to include yogurt, sour cream, and chip dip—so I knew something about the social significance of eating habits. I learned even more about the politics of dietary choice and the complex relation- ships between morality and health after, without giving it much thought, I became a vegetarian at the age of thirteen (remaining so for about seventeen years). I barely made it through my second year of college on the East Coast before declaring that I was moving to California to ‘‘work with vegetables,’’ and by the time I discovered Shapiro and Waters I was a cook at Greens, a well-known vegetarian restaurant in San Francisco founded in 1979 by the San Francisco Zen Center. In the Greens kitchen I absorbed the meaningfulness of the seasons, learned to express my appre- ciation of good produce through skilled but restrained technique, and developed a worldview in which food was a language for emotions, rela- tionships, and values. I wrote a food column for a local paper, published a community cookbook called Delicious, which was bound with chopsticks and wire, and gave readings at local open mics with a wooden spoon in my pocket. Greens was in many ways a cultural and culinary sibling of Waters’s Chez Panisse, and Waters’s ideas seemed utterly sensible, intui- tive, and right to me. Of course we should eat ethically, value the table as a place for community and family, know where our food came from. But the hundred-year-old voice of Ellen Richards taunted me into question- ing, instead of joining, the revolution. Waters’s convictions were surprisingly similar to Richards’s. While Waters’s aim was to overturn exactly the changes in the food system that Shapiro credits the domestic scientists with ushering in (scientific ra- tionality, standardization, industrialization), she shared Richards’s fun- damental insistence that teaching people to eat right was essential to so- cial well-being and that, by ignoring food, the public schools were failing in their mandate to train citizens. How could two reformers with such entirely di√erent ideas about how people should eat be at the same time so completely alike in their convictions about why it was important to

2 chapter one

teach people how to eat? Clearly there was something meaningful about telling people how to eat right that transcended the dietary advice itself. I enrolled in the University of California, Berkeley, to pursue these questions and finish my undergraduate degree. I cut back my hours at Greens, traded creative writing about food for academic writing about food reformers, and wrote a senior thesis called ‘‘Banana Salad and Squash Blossoms: A Comparative History of Two Food Reform Movements.’’ The thesis was an exploration of the relationship between the domestic science movement and the ‘‘Delicious Revolution’’ that Alice Waters was foment- ing. Through the process of researching and writing, I came to believe that the relationship between Richards and Waters was not at all random or coincidental, but rather the result of a set of cultural beliefs about the meaning of eating right that inspired both of them to see improving peo- ple’s eating habits as a way to improve their moral character. I began to understand that the reformers involved in both movements played a cer- tain cultural role even when they were not aware of doing so, delineating social norms and imposing the values of the middle class through the seemingly neutral language of diet. My qualms about joining Waters’s revolution evolved into a critique of the dietary reform impulse itself, and I started to find it odd that dietary advice was commonly treated as nothing more than the beneficent application of knowledge to the aspiration of living better, healthier lives. By the time national alarm about obesity had reached a near deafening pitch, in the late 1990s, I was in graduate school. Having seen dire warnings about the diets of Americans before—in Ellen Richards’s early-twentieth-century caution that the future of the race de- pended on eating habits, for example—I was certain that understanding the history of dietary reform was essential to making sense of the cam- paign against obesity and its social ramifications. While this book is about dietary reform, my aim is not to change people’s eating habits. Instead, I hope to illuminate the cultural politics of dietary health in America so we can better understand what happens when we define good diets, talk about eating right, or try to improve other people’s eating habits. What are we really talking about when we talk about dietary health? Why is the question of what to eat so morally fraught? Why is teaching people to eat right such a compelling project for the American middle class? What does it really mean to eat right in Amer- ica? I present the stories of four seemingly distinct reform movements, exposing their continuities and discontinuities, in order to answer these

questions. I start with the contention that despite seemingly scientific origins, dietary ideals are cultural, subjective, and political. While its pri- mary aim may be to improve health, the process of teaching people to ‘‘eat right’’ inevitably involves shaping certain kinds of subjects, and citizens, and shoring up the identity and social boundaries of the ever-threatened American middle class. The story I tell here is about dietary ideals and the people who have dedicated themselves to promoting ‘‘eating right’’ as a biological and so- cial good. While it’s designed to help us understand the social role of ideas about ‘‘good diets,’’ this story also illuminates several larger issues, includ- ing the cultural politics of health, the historical dynamics of class, and the process of social normalization. The history of dietary reform, for exam- ple, raises questions about the massive role that health and health promo- tion has come to play in our individual and social lives over the last cen- tury, and particularly since the 1970s. In tracing this expansion through the history of dietary reform, I hope to provoke a dialogue about what health really means to us, and what its pursuit should look like. Are there important social concerns and aims that the emphasis on health obscures rather than promotes? This history also gives us a chance to think anew about how culturally constructed class di√erences can come to seem like the natural basis for, rather than the result of, social distinction. I hope to cause readers to think about dietary health as a privilege with conse- quences that extend far beyond the biomedical. The history of dietary reform also adds to our understanding of how ideas about proper be- havior and good citizenship are worked out. This history reveals a means of normalization that is usually obscured by the assumed objectivity of scientific discourses, reminding us that in order to understand and act responsibly within the social world we inhabit, we must be bold about the scope of our critical thinking, extending cultural criticism into realms— like dietary health—that are often reserved for science. On one hand this book is a chronological journey through dietary advice from the late nineteenth century to the present. I take the reader through four distinct dietary reform movements, each one motivated by a unique set of social and nutritional concerns and oriented around its own definitions of what constitutes a good diet and what constitutes a good eater. I start with the domestic science movement at the end of the nineteenth century, move on to the national nutrition program of the World War II home front, then look at two di√erent movements that

4 chapter one

coalesced toward the end of the twentieth century: the alternative food movement and the campaign against obesity. The chronological narrative focuses both on the ongoing relationship between dietary ideals and so- cial ideals and on the evolving nature of those ideals as they have been reshaped by changes in nutritional knowledge as well as in political, eco- nomic, and social pressures. I demonstrate that the scope and purview of

dietary reform has grown dramatically over the course of the last century, thus providing a new explanation for why we worry so much about eating right today: not because of an increasing incidence of diet-related diseases or because of growing knowledge about the role of diet in preventing such diseases, but because of ongoing expansions in the social signifi- cance of dietary health and the moral valence of being a ‘‘good eater.’’ On the other hand, and on a slightly more abstract level, this book is a conceptual journey from a place where we know exactly what dietary ad- vice is—rules about what to eat based on nutritional findings and aimed at improving health and longevity—to a place of disorientation about what dietary advice is. I want to encourage a rethinking of exactly what it is we think we know about dietary health. In her analysis of the nineteenth- century culture of health, Joan Burbick writes, ‘‘Common sense state-

an index of certain beliefs so dear to the heart of

the people that they are presented as the bedrock of reality.’’ While the facts of food and health are certainly the subject of intense debates, the notion that dietary advice is an objective reflection of scientific knowledge and that its primary aim is to produce healthier bodies is ‘‘an index of certain beliefs’’ that I seek to reveal and understand in Eating Right in America. The chronological journey through the history of dietary reform is the vehicle for this intellectual journey from what we might call an ‘‘empirical’’ view of dietary health as an objective reflection of nutrition facts to what we might call a ‘‘constructionist’’ view that takes seriously the social and cultural process through which those facts attain their authority and their seeming naturalness. Two ideas are particularly important to the intertwined historical and theoretical aims of this project. First is that health is fundamentally a cultural concept. The sociologist Robert Crawford describes health as a ‘‘key word’’ and highlights the cultural content and the social dynamics of health discourses. Crawford explains, ‘‘Talking about health is a way people give expression to our cultural notion of well-being or quality of ‘Health’ provides a means for personal and social evaluation.’’

ments in a culture are

Furthermore, he argues, health is a ‘‘moral discourse,’’ a means of estab- lishing and a≈rming shared values around what it is to be a good person.

If indeed health is a cultural concept, a means of expressing core cultural

values and a moral discourse through which we assess ourselves and oth- ers, then dietary health is clearly about more than a physiological rela- tionship between food and the body. My conversations with students bear out this contention and reveal how cultural values are entwined with our commonsense ideas about eating right. In a course I teach about the culture of food and health in the United States, I begin by asking who in the room tries to eat a ‘‘good’’ or ‘‘healthy’’ diet. Almost all of the students raise their hands. I then ask them to explain why they try to ‘‘eat right,’’ typically ending up with a blackboard list that reads something like this: to get a date or find a mate (be attractive, be sexy, look hot); to have energy for sports, work, or schoolwork; to obey parents, grandparents or teachers who told me to; to live longer; to avoid disease (because diabetes or heart disease or cancer runs in the family); to show I am educated; to show I am disciplined; to be

responsible; because I feel guilty if I do not. The list includes some reasons for eating right that have nothing to do with health (being sexy, display- ing discipline, responsibility, or education) and others that appear to be more biomedical, such as seeking energy or longevity and wanting to avoid disease. But even seemingly biomedical motivations for maintain- ing a good diet are inseparable from cultural values. Aren’t e≈ciency, productivity, and longevity culturally distinct personal goals that have to do with shared cultural values? Is this not also true for the idea that individuals can, and should, mitigate disease through good behavior? The classroom exercise illustrates an important premise of my analysis: there

is no such thing as dietary health apart from social ideals and, therefore,

dietary ideals are never simply objective reflections of nutritional facts. The second concept that is foundational to this project builds on the first: dietary ideals always communicate not only rules for how to choose

a ‘‘good diet,’’ but also guidelines for how to be a good person. This

concept draws on John Coveney’s argument that nutrition is both an empirical and an ethical system. Coveney explains that nutrition always

serves two functions, providing rules about what to eat that also function

as a system through which people construct themselves as certain kinds of

subjects. This means that dietary advice conveys messages about what to eat that are at the same time lessons in how to be a good eater and a good

6 chapter one

person. Building on this, my research shows that dietary ideals primarily convey two interlocking sets of social ideals: one communicates emerging cultural notions of good citizenship and prepares people for new social and political realities; the other expresses the social concerns of the mid- dle class and attempts to distinguish its character and identity. Eating Right in America adds to an emerging body of work that treats nu- trition and dietary health as cultural constructs. Histories written by nutri- tion scientists have, since the emergence of the field itself, approached nutrition as a progressive e√ort to uncover the truth about food and the human body, tracing the development of scientific methods and discover- ies while celebrating their positive impact on human health. Since the 1960s and 1970s social historians have used nutritional data to trace the impact of changes in nutrition status, food supply, and dietary standards on other social conditions, such as the occurrence of deficiency diseases, rates of fertility and mortality, population growth, and worker productiv- ity. Cultural historians influenced by the linguistic turn of the 1970s have treated nutrition as a cultural practice that both shapes and is shaped by other cultural practices, taking into account issues of power, identity, and ideology. Beliefs about the empirical truth of science and the objective reality of the human body that anchor the works described above become the subject of critical inquiry for scholars, like myself, working in an area we might call ‘‘critical nutrition studies.’’ We consider nutrition itself—not just its practice but its content—as a product of history. This approach is consistent with poststructuralism’s broader impact on the way in which history is viewed and conducted, and it is also shaped by the major insights of science and technology studies about the production of scientific knowl- edge. My analysis of the history of dietary reform both draws on and seeks to develop two of the key insights that have emerged thus far from this nascent ‘‘field’’: nutrition is not only an empirical set of rules, but also a system of moral measures, and its presumably neutral quantitative strat- egies are themselves political and ideological. π In approaching dietary health as a cultural concept that conveys social ideals and takes part in the formation of certain kinds of subjects and social formations, I situate Eating Right in America, more specifically, at the intersection of the young field of food studies and the even younger field of fat studies. I also illuminate a gap between the two fields that should be developed as a productive intersection. Both food studies and fat stud- ies fall short of providing the full range of tools that we need to critically

assess the culture of dietary health in America, but each does provide essential tools for the job. Food studies alerts us to the cultural significance of eating habits and beliefs about food, provides rich insights into the history of those habits and beliefs, and teaches us to be attentive to how power operates through the seemingly mundane. However, in the United States in particular, food studies scholars have taken remarkably little in- terest in historicizing or theorizing health and have been largely silent on the very important questions that are raised by the distinctly biomedical orientation of American ideas about what is good to eat. The field, there- fore, stands to gain much from those scholars engaged in fat studies, in which the body and its social construction are resolutely central. While fat studies scholarship is acutely aware of the way in which ideas about health are shaped by cultural predispositions and political motiva- tions, its objects of study and its insights are for the most part focused on current and historical manifestations of fatness and its discourses. This is, of course, absolutely essential to building a field that can account for the ways in which fat bodies and subjectivities are constructed, repre- sented, and maligned and how they can be reclaimed. However, such an accounting also requires a broader perspective that investigates the con- nections between how we think about fat and how we think about food, health, and identity more broadly. An exclusive focus on fat obscures a set of questions that, properly wielded, yield important insights into why the nation is currently mobilized into a war against fat. The campaign against obesity may seem di√erent in kind than a dietary reform movement like domestic science, focusing as it does on body size, rather than on eating habits. But, on the contrary, the antiobesity movement is an extreme manifestation of the logic of dietary reform that emerged at the end of the nineteenth century and an extension of the many expansions in the social role of dietary health that have since occurred. I begin this history at the end of the nineteenth century because the modern science of human nutrition, which emerged at that time, pro- duced a unique social potential for discourses of eating right. Dietary reformers have helped people to choose diets in accordance with religious or civic ideals since ancient times, and there is an especially interesting and important history of American dietary reformers in the Jacksonian era. Ω There is, however, something unique about the kind of cultural work that dietary reform performs in relation to the seemingly objective, quantitative strategies of science. The phenomenon that I refer to as

8 chapter one

‘‘modern dietary reform’’ was born not only because science made it possible to define a ‘‘good diet’’ in empirical terms, but also because the cultural context meant that such a definition was taken as a neutral and authoritative kind of truth. The science of nutrition began its reign as the dominant means of evaluating and categorizing food just as science itself began to secure its cultural status as an arbiter of truth (becoming only more autonomous and seemingly objective over the course of the twen- tieth century). Therefore, since the late nineteenth century the ethical content of nutrition has been increasingly obscured even as it has been consistently embraced by reformers who undertake the process of dietary improvement in order to achieve social aims, such as the building of character and the melioration of various forms of social instability. The marriage of scientific empiricism with the social aims of dietary reform- ers defined a new era in which quantifiable norms provided a seemingly objective but nonetheless moral measure of ‘‘eating right.’’ In each chapter of this book I focus on one reform movement and follow roughly the same trajectory, first tracing the emergence of new dietary ideals in relation to both nutritional and social concerns; then examining the relationship between the new dietary ideals and emerging cultural notions of citizenship to show how lessons in eating right have also functioned as a pedagogy of good citizenship; and finally exploring the dynamics of class that are implicated in each discourse of eating right. After I introduce the era of modern dietary reform, the narrative high- lights a series of expansions in the role of dietary reform and the social valence of eating right over the last century, helping to explain why ques- tions about what to eat are so pervasive, and fraught, today. In chapter 2 I focus on the emergence of the era of modern dietary reform and establish an understanding of nutrition as both empirical and ethical. I explore how domestic scientists capitalized on both of these aspects in their promotion of scientific cookery first among the urban poor and later among the ‘‘intelligent classes,’’ and argue that courses in home economics taught more than just domestic skills; they helped stu- dents to understand and meet the changing demands of citizenship in the context of Progressive Era social and political reforms. I also argue that domestic scientists played a role in forging a distinct middle-class identity in relation to health and introduce the concept of the ‘‘unhealthy other,’’ a dynamic through which the middle class a≈rms its status through the

ongoing production of an other whose dangerous diets threaten social stability. I open chapter 3 by looking at the changes in nutritional thinking brought about by the discovery of vitamins and explore how anxieties and aspirations about the eating habits of the population converged with social concerns related to mobilization for World War II. This conver- gence produced a significant expansion in the scope of dietary reform, which came to encompass the entire population, with eating right serving an important social role on the home front. Exploring the nutrition- education component of the World War II home-front food program, I show that lessons in eating right were a means of promoting home-front morale, of delineating wartime ideals of good citizenship, and of reassert- ing class and gender hierarchies destabilized by wartime social flux. The second half of the book is framed by postwar shifts in the broader culture of health in the United States, from concerns about contagious diseases to an emphasis on chronic diseases and the behaviors believed to cause or mitigate them, including diet. These changes laid the ground- work for eating habits to move to the center of health discourses in the late twentieth century and early twenty-first, and for eating habits to take on unprecedented levels of social and moral importance for individuals. In the context of growing attention to ‘‘lifestyle’’ in relation to health, a new nutritional paradigm that focused on avoiding or limiting the con- sumption of particular foods and nutrients gave rise to two very di√erent dietary reform movements: alternative food and the campaign against obesity. In chapter 4 I argue that the mainstream alternative-food move- ment reproduced the normalizing function of earlier dietary discourses despite its departure from nutritional thinking and embrace of pleasure as a guide for eating right, and that in so doing it actually expanded the purview of dietary reform deeper into the subjectivity of eaters. I also explore the ways in which this movement promoted social ideals that were consistent with ideals of good citizenship that emerged as part of the late-twentieth-century process of neoliberalization. In chapter 5 I focus on the campaign against obesity, which took place against the same social and cultural backdrop. I explore how the ideals of good citizenship pro- duced by the political-economic project of neoliberalism were expressed in this dietary discourse, examining in particular the equating of health with thinness and self-control. In chapter 5 I am especially attentive to

10 chapter one

how, and why, the social stakes related to obesity have become so conse- quential, especially for those who are fat. My arguments are based on my analysis of the discourses of dietary reform—the published and unpublished writings of reformers, as well as the vast and varied materials they produced to bring their messages to the public, from posters to public kitchens. As Patricia Allen explains, ‘‘Dis- course is what forms and maintains social movement identity. In fact, for some, discourse is primarily what a social movement is.’’ Furthermore, Allen writes, ‘‘discourse is not only constitutive of social movements; it is also one of the primary tools movements employ to work toward social change.’’ Likewise, discourses are to a large extent what dietary-reform movements are—they are the primary tool the reform movements em- ploy toward dietary change—and analysis of these discourses is critical to our ability to understand how our taken-for-granted assumptions about food and health have come to seem so true. The language and practices of dietary reform play an important role in constructing commonsense no- tions not just about eating right, but also about what it means to be a good person and a good citizen, what health is, and how class operates. Because I have focused on the discourse of reformers, however, I do not attend to whether or not dietary reform actually a√ected people’s eating habits. I also do not address what the targets of dietary reform thought about it, how they reacted to the dietary advice directed at them, or what ‘‘eating right’’ meant to them. And I risk creating a falsely mono- lithic sense of what dietary health is and means. I hope that the limits of my analysis incite others to undertake more specific studies of the beliefs and behaviors of communities beyond the dietary-reformers studied here. We need to find and analyze historical evidence of how the assump- tions embedded in the discourses I study have been adopted, resisted, and contested by the people who have been the targets of reform, and we need to explore how people who are not reformers have generated and acted on their own ‘‘truths’’ about good food. We also need ethnographic and other kinds of qualitative data that can show us how people of di√erent racial, cultural, and class backgrounds currently understand and use, or refuse, concepts such as ‘‘good diet,’’ ‘‘good eater,’’ and ‘‘eating right’’ in their everyday lives. My aim here is to analyze the dynamics of dietary advice, not to give dietary advice, so I don’t expect to change anybody’s eating habits. But I

do intend to change how people think about what it means to eat right. As the voices of the dietary reformers quoted at the beginning of this book suggest, the people who promote dietary advice are hoping to do a lot more than help us each to achieve better health. They see eating habits as a link between individual bodies and the social body, so dietary advice is a way for them to pursue social aims, not just better the health of individ- uals. While it may often seem like we are each navigating the terrain of dietary choice in purely personal ways that have only to do with our own health and well-being, I hope to have provided a starting point from which to rethink eating right as a social duty, a moral measure, and a form of power worthy of our most critical attention.

12 chapter one

NOTES
NOTES

one The Cultural Politics of Dietary Health

The epigraphs are drawn from, respectively, Ellen Richards, Euthenics: The Science of a Controllable Environment (Boston: Whitcomb and Barrows, 1910), 100; Consumer Counsel Division of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, ‘‘Food and National De- fense Issue,’’ Consumer’s Guide 6, no. 20 (1943); Molly O’Neill, ‘‘Keeper of the Flame,’’ New York Times Magazine, December 12, 1992, 29; Richard Carmona, ‘‘Remarks at the American Enterprise Institute Obesity Conference,’’ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, D.C., June 10, 2003.

1. Laura Shapiro, Perfection Salad: Women and Cooking at the Turn of the Century (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1986).

2. This argument draws on the theory of class developed by Pierre Bourdieu, in

Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Uni- versity Press, 1984).

3. Joan Burbick, Healing the Republic: The Language of Health and the Culture of

Nationalism in Nineteenth-Century America (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 17.

4. Robert Crawford, ‘‘A Cultural Account of ‘Health’: Control, Release, and the So-

cial Body,’’ in Issues on the Political Economy of Health Care, ed. John B. McKinley (New York: Tavistock Publications, 1984), 62.

5. Crawford, ‘‘A Cultural Account of ‘Health.’’’

6. John Coveney, Food, Morals, and Meaning: The Pleasure and Anxiety of Eating

(New York: Routledge, 2000), 63.

7. See Charlotte Bilteko√, ‘‘Critical Nutrition Studies,’’ in Handbook of Food His-

tory, ed. Je√rey Pilcher (New York: Oxford, 2012), for a more developed exploration of the historiography of nutrition and the emergence of ‘‘critical nutrition studies.’’ See the following for more on the two ‘‘key insights’’ of critical nutrition studies: De- borah Lupton, Food, the Body and the Self (London: Sage, 1996); Deborah Lupton

and Alan Petersen, The New Public Health: Health and Self in the Age of Risk (Lon- don: Sage, 1996); Coveney, Food, Morals, and Meaning; Nick Cullather, ‘‘The Foreign Policy of the Calorie,’’ American Historical Review 112, no. 2 (2007); Jessica Mudry,

Measured Meals: Nutrition in America (Albany: suny Press, 2009); Gyorgy Scrinis, ‘‘On the Ideology of Nutritionism,’’ Gastronomic 8, no. 1 (2008); Gyorgy Scrinis, Nu- tritionism: The Science and Politics of Dietary Advice (New York: Columbia University Press, 2013).

8. For an excellent overview of the field, see Sondra Solovay and Esther Rothblum,

eds., The Fat Studies Reader (New York: nyu Press, 2009); Jana Evans Braziel and Kathleen LeBesco, eds., Bodies Out of Bounds: Fatness and Transgression (Berkeley:

University of California Press, 2001).

9. For more on this history, see Coveney, Food, Morals, and Meaning. See also Ste-

phen Nissenbaum, Sex , Diet, and Debility in Jacksonian America: Sylvester Graham and Health Reform (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1980); James C. Whorton, Crusaders for Fitness: The History of American Health Reformers (Princeton, NJ:

Princeton University Press, 1982).

10. Charles E. Rosenberg, No Other Gods: On Science and American Social Thought

(Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1961); Harmke Kamminga and Andrew

Cunningham, ‘‘Introduction: The Science and Culture of Nutrition, 1840–1940,’’ in The Science and Culture of Nutrition, 1840–1940, ed. Harmke Kamminga and Andrew Cunningham (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1995), 13.

11. Robert Crawford, ‘‘The Boundaries of the Self and the Unhealthy Other: Re-

flections on Health, Culture and aids,’’ Social Science Medicine 38, no. 10 (1994).

12. Patricia Allen, Together at the Table: Sustainability and Sustenance in the Ameri-

can Agrifood System (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press/Rural So-

ciological Society, 2004), 6.

two Scientific Moralization and the Beginning of Modern Dietary Reform

1. See U.S. Department of Agriculture, ChooseMyPlate.gov, available at http://

www.choosemyplate.gov/.

2. The politics behind nutritional recommendations are covered in Marion Nestle,

Food Politics: How the Food Industry Influences Nutrition and Health (Berkeley: Uni-

versity of California Press, 2002).

3. Harvey Levenstein, Revolution at the Table: The Transformation of the American

Diet (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988); Laura Shapiro, Perfection Salad:

Women and Cooking at the Turn of the Century (New York: Henry Holt, 1986); War- ren Belasco, ‘‘Food, Morality, and Social Reform,’’ in Morality and Health, ed. Paul Rozin and Allen M. Brandt (New York: Routledge, 1997).

4. John Coveney, Food, Morals, and Meaning: The Pleasure and Anxiety of Eating

(New York: Routledge, 2000), 53–56.

5. For more on the politics and ideology of nutritional quantification, particularly

at the usda, see Jessica Mudry, Measured Meals: Nutrition in America (Albany:

suny Press, 2009).

158 Notes to Chapter Two